Climate Stewardship Act of 2003

CLIMATE STEWARDSHIP ACT OF 2003

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just make a couple of comments, and then I will yield to the Senator from Missouri.

I know it is so easy to stand up here and talk about "the science is irrefutable," talk about how different groups are supporting S. 139. I know neither the distinguished Senator from Arizona nor the distinguished Senator from Connecticut would intentionally say something that is not true. However, some of the things they are saying are not true. They are not factual.

A little bit later I am going to be going into detail on this science question. The science that has been reviewed since 1999 is overwhelmingly on the side that global warming, in fact, is not occurring and, if it is occurring, is not a result of manmade anthropogenic gases.

I would also like to say, I will be talking about some of these groups that supposedly are supporting this bill who, in fact, are not supporting this bill. But I am going to save that for a few minutes because we have several Members who will be coming in on our side who will be wanting to address this issue. For that reason, I now yield to the Senator from Missouri 7 minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I have talked to our good friend, my brother, the Senator from Hawaii, and he has graciously agreed to let one of our Members go first before he is recognized.

At this time, I yield to the Senator from Ohio, Mr. Voinovich.

Before yielding to Senator Voinovich, I was honored to chair the Clean Air Subcommittee prior to the time I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee. During that time, Senator Voinovich was Governor Voinovich. He was the chairman of the Governors Clean Air Committee. I don't believe there is anyone in this Senate who has a better knowledge of air problems or who has higher credentials than the Senator from Ohio.

At this time, I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. All right. Mr. President, I was telling my good friend from Connecticut a few minutes ago, if we keep hearing it repeated that "the science is real, the science is real, the science is real," sooner or later they are going to start believing it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me just say, first of all, reference was made by one of the speakers to the Byrd-Hagel resolution that was passed 95 to 0. What did that resolution say? The resolution said, if there is economic damage or if the developing countries do not have to do the same thing the developed nations do, then we are not going to ratify the treaty. That is exactly what they came back with.

So here we have a situation now that is even worse because we are talking about passing a bill that would put the United States of America in a position where they have to do something that not only the developing nations do not have to do, but even the developed nations do not have to do.

So I can tell you right now, there are a lot of people in China who are rejoicing, thinking: Boy, all those American jobs are going to come to us if they pass this. In India, they are rejoicing; in Brazil, the same thing. In South Korea, President Roh, and President Vincente Fox of Mexico would be delighted to think about the great jobs that would go there—many of which have already gone there because of some of our overregulation in this country.

Like Kyoto, this is an extreme approach. I am not going to try to figure out which bill we are talking about. The McCain-Lieberman bill has been around now for months. And now, at 11:53 this morning, they changed it. I don't know what was changed.

But I would say this: This is a cartoon that appeared that I think you will enjoy, I say to Senator Lieberman. It is the camel's nose under the tent, the fact that if you get just a little bit here, then all of a sudden the rest of it will come in. And the rest of it is the body of Kyoto.

Now, why do I say that? I say that because they are actually saying one thing. I don't care how they change their bill, they are changing the policy of America to make us believe and have, as a new policy, that CO2 is a pollutant. CO2 is not a pollutant. Other things are pollutants.

In fact, we have the Clear Skies Act which the President of the United States, President Bush, is promoting. It has the largest reduction in emissions that any President has ever promoted, with a 70-percent reduction. And those are in sulfur dioxide and mercury.

But in this case here, just to show you that nothing really has changed by the last minute change, these features—the covered gases, emission caps, timetables, emissions trading, wealth transfer, emissions reporting, sequestration and sinks, verification, and future racheting—those are the same things that are in the current bill that appeared in the bill mysteriously at 11:53.

Now, I would like to suggest we have heard a lot of hysteria tonight. We are going to hear it tomorrow for 2 more hours—no, 1 more hour. That time is going to be equally divided, and they are going to be talking about the horrible things that are going to happen, the ice caps are going to be breaking, all these things.

I would suggest to you, Mr. President, we heard the same thing a few years ago. Looking at a couple magazines—this is Science Digest. They came out, and they said: "Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age." The same people who are talking about warming today were talking about bracing yourself for another ice age. If there were time, I would read the script. It is really enlightening to do so. I would encourage my fellow Senators to do that.

Then, Time magazine came out, and they have "Another Ice Age?" They talked about these horrible things that are going to happen: We are not going to be able to grow anything anymore. We are going to have to shut down businesses because we are no longer going to be able to function because we have another ice age—not global warming, global cooling.

Then along came Newsweek, and it says: "The Cooling World." They talk about the horrible things that are going to happen.

So it seems to me it is the strategy of those individuals who are catering to the extreme environmental left to try to scare people. And there is no reason to do that.

Now, I think probably the most significant thing I am going to be talking about tonight is to try to make people realize that if you say something enough times, as we keep hearing—as I mentioned a minute ago, about the science being real, about it is proven, and all that—sooner or later people believe it. One reason is we do have a liberal national media, and they would like to have people believe that.

Now, we heard a lot of discussion about the National Academy of Sciences. I would like to quote Dr. Frederick Seitz, who is the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and 17,800 other independently verified signers.

Now, the Senator from Arizona talked about the 1,010 scientists. We are talking about 17,800. This is what the Oregon petition said. This is a petition that was put together by the lead, Dr. Frederick Seitz, the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, along with 17,800 other signatures:

We urge the U.S. government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

This is the former president of the National Academy of Sciences. He goes on to say:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Now, this is significant. We are talking about not only is CO2 not a pollutant—which it is not a pollutant—but it is a fertilizer. It is something that helps us and something that would be to the benefit to have more of, not less.

Now, in addition, there are over 4,000 scientists, 70 of whom are Nobel prize winners, who have signed the Heidelberg appeal.

The Heidelberg appeal says: No compelling evidence exists to justify controls of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Anthropogenic is the term meaning "man-made." We keep hearing the Senator from New York talking about the man-made gases. It does not exist. These are 4,000 scientists. Look at some of the scientists we are talking about. They are on this list. It is too many to delineate at this time. The bottom line is that the science just flat is not there.

Ninety percent of the science—in fact, 100 percent of the science I have heard the other side talk about tonight is all science that they allege happened, but it was all before 1999. What we are talking about are things that have happened since then.
There has been a turnaround.

Last July 8, James Schlesinger—we all remember him; he certainly is no Republican—the Energy Secretary to former President Carter, said:

There is an idea among the public that the science is settled. That remains far from the truth.

He goes on to talk about the fact that the science is not sound behind the myth, the hoax of global warming.

It is important to realize that the IPCC, which is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, came from the United Nations with the idea that they are making the recommendations. The lead scientist behind that was a scientist named Dr. Michael Mann.

What we have done here is talk about what has happened in terms of the science that has come from this recent 2003 science, as opposed to what came under Michael Mann or the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One is the detail, less hemispheric, and the information that they used, the age of the data. Under Michael Mann it was older, 1999 or before. The newer is after the IPCC. This is all new stuff. I will submit this for the RECORD because it is all very self-explanatory.

Several times reference was made by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut to MIT and what MIT is saying to us. I would like to quote Dr. Richard Lindzen, an MIT scientist and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Both of these—MIT and National Academy of Sciences—were used to fortify the case that this hoax called greenhouse gas is a reality. This is what Dr. Rich Lindzen said. He has specialized in the climate issue for over 30 years. He told the Committee on Environment and Public Works, the committee I chair:

There is a definite disconnect between Kyoto and science. Should a catastrophic scenario prove correct, Kyoto would not prevent it.

These are new discussions that are coming from scientists whose credentials cannot be questioned. Again, it is MIT science—we heard that a few minutes ago—and the National Academy of Sciences.

Dr. David Legates is director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware. This is going back to Michael Mann, the guy who is the scientist behind the IPCC, all this stuff that we have been hearing. Dr. Legates said:

Although [Mann's work] is now widely used as proof of anthropogenic global warming, we've become concerned that such an analysis is in direct contradiction to most of the research and written histories available. Our paper shows this contradiction and argues that the results of Mann .    .    . are out of step with the preponderance of the evidence.
Preponderance of the evidence, we keep hearing the other side say the science there. No one is going to question it. We are all questioning it.

This is from a publication called "Energy and Environment," and this was November 15, last week. It starts talking about the flaws in the logic that were used by the Mann study. The flaws all come out. I will show the greatest flaw of all.

Let me hold this piece of paper up to this side. This is what Dr. Mann has been talking about. He referred to the famous hockey stick. Here is the hockey stick. The shaft goes along here and all of a sudden that is the hockey stick part. That is supposed to be where it is getting so warm. What he failed to do was to go back to the 1400s. If you look at this, the Earth was much warmer, the temperatures were much warmer back then than they are today by a long ways. So it is just leaving
out these little convenient things that causes the truth to be distorted.

I think this is probably the most important chart. It shows you what the other side does. They will cover up the part that disclaims everything they are saying and come out and use it as evidence to promote it. I am saying that the temperatures on the Earth's surface were higher in the 1400s than they are today.

One of the most recent things that came out just in March was the Harvard Smithsonian study. This was the most far-reaching study ever made on climate change. It examined the results of more than 240 peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers over the past four decades. The study covers a multitude of geophysical and biological climate indicators. They came to the conclusion that climate change is not real, that the science is not accurate. We will be coming back to that from time to time, probably tomorrow also.

This is the range of climate proxies that were used to come up with the conclusions of the Harvard Smithsonian study. If you read them all, it starts with borehole data, cultural data, glacier advance and retreats, geomorphology, all these things were used. Primarily what was used by Dr. Mann were the tree rings. And this covers every known type of a proxy that could be used. All of this was in the Harvard Smithsonian study.

So I think if you go back one more time to the chart that we had up here that shows how they are misrepresenting the data,
if you stop and think about it, just use logic on things that we know. What is incontrovertible? What do we know right now that no one can question? What we know is that there was a medieval warming period. That period was around from 800 A.D. to about 1300. Then there was the little ice age that came along. The little ice age went from 1300 to 1900. Then we went into another warming period that endured from 1900 until 1940.

Something significant happened in 1940. In 1940, we started going into another cooling period. But wait a minute. The 1940s was the decade when the surge came in CO2 emissions. That was during the time when more people were driving, and it happened right after the war. So we had the greatest increase in releases of CO2 during that time, an 80-percent increase.

What did that do? Did that cause warming? It did not. It precipitated a cooling period that endured through the 1970s. I think if you look at that, I don't know how anyone can say that the science is at all favoring—and certainly not recent science—the concept, I call it a hoax, of global warming.

Since I gave a speech on the floor when I used these charts, which I may not have time to do tonight, there have been a lot of things that have come out. The University of Colorado researched the Arctic Circle information. To do that, they actually went down beneath the snowpack in the Colorado Rockies, and the scientists discovered fungi emitting large quantities of carbon dioxide in methane. Of course, this is totally unrelated to manmade emissions. That is not man-made.
They are talking about man-made emissions. That is something that was there that was never considered until it was discovered about a month ago. They said in an article in the Washington Post, quoting the scientist:

Indeed, scientists said, if other regions of the world have similar fungal communities thriving under the winter snows, as seems likely, climatologists will have to revise their models of global warming to accommodate fungi surprisingly massive role in the winter production of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide.

It went on to say—these are the scientists now, after this discovery just a month ago:

The global warming models can no longer ignore fungi in snowy regions and seasons as they had, scientists said, especially because about 40 percent of the landmass is covered with snow for at least part of the year.

We will revisit this issue, but there is no question that the science refutes everything the alarmists we have heard about have been trying to promote. I think something that would be more meaningful to the Members of this body would be, so what, there is. There is a preacher named Lon Solomon. On the rare occasions I am here on Sunday, I will go out to the McLean Bible Church. Right in the middle of his sermon he says: So what.

We have gone through all this, the science is flawed, it doesn't exist. So what. What is the big deal? The big deal is the economic harm that would come to this country. Let's examine it for a moment.

Later on I will go over all of the letters, but here is what the teamsters, boilermakers, electrical workers, and others wrote me in a letter on September 9—this past September 9. This is not in 1999. They write:

Mandatory reduction requirements for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would create much higher energy prices for consumers and put the economic recovery at risk, while providing little or no tangible benefit for the global environment.
We, therefore, urge you to vote against S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act.

CBO, the Congressional Budget Office—we depend on them for scoring, for coming up with numbers we use to make economic decisions in this body. They said it best:

The price increases resulting from a carbon cap would be regressive. That is, they would place a relatively greater burden on lower income households than on higher income households.

A minute ago we heard Senator Voinovich from Ohio. During one of our committee hearings, a guy named Tom Mullen, who is the president of Catholic Charities, testified before our committee and said:

The overall impact on the economy in northeast Ohio would be overwhelming, and the needs that we address at Catholic Charities in Ohio with the elderly and poor would be well beyond our capacity and that of our current partners in government and the private sector.

You heard about the harassment he has been subjected to because he cares—sincerely, genuinely cares—about these older people.

What about minorities? According to a study by the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, if the United States ratifies Kyoto or passes domestic climate policies—that is what we are talking about, effectively implementing the treaty; that is their goal—the result would "disproportionately harm America's minority communities, and place the economic advancement of millions of U.S. Blacks and Hispanics at risk."

That was the Center for Energy and Economic Development doing a study for the Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.

It gets down to being more specific. We find out from this study that the Kyoto issue we are talking about right now would cost 511,000 jobs by Hispanic workers and 864,000 jobs held by black workers. Poverty rates for minority families will increase dramatically, and because Kyoto will bring about higher energy prices, many minority businesses would be lost.

Here is a chart that shows the unemployment rate this study revealed. This study was sanctioned by the Black and Hispanic Chambers of Commerce because of their concern. Keep in mind all these things will happen to them, and yet there is no science or logic behind those decisions.

This information came from Pennsylvania State University. They did a study. In this study, they break it down by State as to how many jobs are going to be lost. I will point out a couple of States.

Illinois would lose, if we were to pass S. 139, 159,000 jobs. I hope the Senators from Illinois are watching right now because 159,000 jobs is not what they would want. Ironically, in Indiana, they would lose 194,000 jobs. In Michigan—and that is a big auto State—they would lose 133,000 jobs. They tell you we are going to carve out a special deal for the autos.
Look, this is the nose-under-the-tent concept. They now say if we adopt this, our policy is the science is real and global warming, in fact, exists.

In Pennsylvania—and I am sure the Pennsylvania Senators are very sensitive to this—they would lose, if we pass this bill, 178,000 jobs. In the State of West Virginia, it will be 126,000 jobs; in Wisconsin, 113,000 jobs; for the interest of the Senator presiding, over 100,000 jobs in the State of Minnesota.

Something was stated by the Senator from Connecticut concerning farms. He said we are going to carve out farmers and agriculture, that nothing is going to happen there. Standard & Poor's Data Resource International did a study—again, a very recent study. They talked about what is going to happen.

Let me share with my colleagues what will happen to the agricultural families in America, according to Standard & Poor's.
You can discredit Standard & Poor's, but I don't think you will get by with it. They are legitimate.

Fewer small family farms: Higher energy costs, together with the reduced domestic and export demand, would lead to a severe decline in agricultural investment and a sharp increase in farm consolidations. The number of small farms likely would decline much more rapidly than under business-as-usual conditions.

Higher production costs: Production costs would increase by up to $16 billion, an increase of almost 9 percent, and would be difficult for agriculture to pass on to the consumers. These higher production costs include a $13 billion increase in manufactured input—that is fuel, fertilizer, and chemicals—expenditures, and $1.6 billion increase in farm origin.

Lower demand for agricultural products: Weaker demand for agricultural products results both from the 1.6 percent decline in GDP and 2.4 percent decrease in consumers' disposable income. It goes on and on.

Higher food program costs: If you are not sensitive to the farmer, you ought to be sensitive to the people who have to eat in this country. For example, USDA spends more than $39 billion for six food assistance programs, including the Food Stamp Program—there are a lot of people interested in that program—and child nutrition programs. We talk about that every day.

For these programs alone, emission controls from the protocol would add 500,000 persons to the food stamp rolls and increase program costs up to 5 percent annually.

Again, this is not Senator JIM INHOFE talking. I am not qualified to make these assessments. This is a study made by a Standard & Poor's research group.

Getting back to the MIT joint program, since they have been used quite a bit, the MIT Joint Program on Science and Policy of Global Change, the average crop yield is 30 percent higher in a CO2-enhanced world.

That is what the Senator from Utah was talking about.

I inquire from the Chair as to our remaining time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. INHOFE. Since it was called to our attention that tradition would have it you wrap up, you may have the last 23 seconds. Let me say to my good friend from Arizona—and he is a good friend—you can talk about these people. He talked about 1,010 scientists. I talked about over 20,000 scientists who have agreed with this, looked at this, and said it doesn't really exist. I have talked about sources that cannot be impugned by anyone. I am talking about the Smithsonian, Harvard, Standard & Poor's, and others.

Let me just mention I have saved, I think, the best for last because, yes, we are concerned about jobs. That is the biggest
concern we have in America now. Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates came out with something that delineated exactly the damage that would be done to America and that it would cost 2.4 million U.S. jobs. That is why the labor unions are involved in this. It would reduce GDP by 3.2 percent, or about $300 billion, which is more than we spend on primary and secondary education combined.

They said because of Kyoto, American consumers would face higher medical, food, and housing costs. Tomorrow I will delineate exactly how much that is. At the same time, an average household of four would see its real income drop by $2,700 by 2010, and each year thereafter.

They go on to say—this is the Wharton School of Economics:

Under Kyoto, energy and electricity prices would nearly double and gasoline prices would go up an additional 65 cents a gallon.

I know I am almost out of time. Since it was brought up by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut about the farmers, let me tell you who is frantically trying to stop us from destroying the American farmer: the International Dairy Foods Association, the National Association of Wheat Growers, National Cattle and Beef Association, National Food Processors Association, National Grange, the National Oilseed Producers, the American Farm Bureau, the National Corn Growers Association. The list goes on and on, because these people are very much concerned about the competitive disadvantage in which they would find themselves.

I would also have to say I invite my very good friend from Arizona to go back and search the record of my remarks, the 40-minute talk I made a few minutes ago. Nowhere in that talk are the two names—what were they, Wigley and Schneider?—who were mentioned during that time. Tomorrow there will be ample opportunity to address that issue.

We are talking about a big deal. You wonder what the motivation is? I will quote a couple of people. If the science is not real, if it inflicts all this damage on America, then what could possibly be the motivation? I think maybe Jacques Chirac, the President of France, the other day was correct when he said, "Kyoto is not about climate. It is the first component of an authentic global governance."

Do we really want to have France dictating policies to us?